Senate Democrats recently removed bans on semi-automatic weapons from pending gun-control legislation in apparent hopes of passing the more politically acceptable universal background checks — even referring to the checks as the “sweet spot” of the proposal.

But the issue has turned into the new sticking point in Congress with a top Republican saying Sunday the plan is “going nowhere” and Democrats and other gun-control advocates pressing the issue.

South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham repeated the argument among gun-rights advocates that the federal government should not add new checks when existing ones are not enforced.

“The current system is broken,” he said on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “Why in the world would you expand that system if you’re not enforcing the law that exists today. … So I think that legislation is going nowhere.”

Leading gun-control advocate Mark Kelly warned Republican senators that trying to block a vote on new firearms legislation that includes universal background checks could hurt their re-election efforts.

Kelly, a former astronaut and Navy captain, directed his remarks to Sens. Rand Paul and Marco Rubio, among five Republican senators who have suggested they will filibuster a debate and full floor vote.

“They should listen to their constituents” and not get in the way of the debate, Kelly told “Fox News Sunday.”

Kelly, who with wife and retired Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords leads the gun-control advocacy group Americans for Responsible solutions, said at least 80 percent of voters in Paul and Rubio’s districts favor the checks for potential gun buyers.

Giffords was shot in the head by Jared Lee Loughner, a mentally ill young man, in January 2011 during a town hall-style meeting outside Tucson, Ariz.

New York Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer told NBC’s “Meet the Press,” he once called background checks the sweet spot “because it would do a whole lot of good and have a good chance of passing.”

“I’m working very hard with both Democrats and Republicans, pro-(National Rifle Association) and anti-NRA people, to come up with a background check that will be acceptable to 60 senators and be very strong and get the job done,” he said. “It’s very hard and we’re working hard and I’m very hopeful that we can get this passed.”

Congress returns April 8 from spring break. No vote on the legislation has been scheduled. But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is expected to bring legislation to the floor next month that is likely to include the background check but no bans on semi-automatic weapons and high-capacity gun magazines.

Sens. Ted Cruz, Texas; Mike Lee, Utah; and James Inhofe, Oklahoma, are the three others who have vowed to join in the filibuster.

“We, the undersigned, intend to oppose any legislation that would infringe on the American people’s constitutional right to bear arms, or on their ability to exercise this right without being subjected to government surveillance,” they said in a March 22 letter to Reid, a Nevada Democrat.

Graham said he will not join the filibuster, unless Reid blocks alternative amendments in the floor vote.

Meanwhile, Iowa Sen. Charles Grassley is crafting a Republican alternative to the one recently passed by the Senate Judiciary Committee, his office said Thursday.

No details have been released, but the bill is expected to include tougher laws on straw purchases and illegal gun trafficking, efforts to increase school safety and keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill.

A new CBS News poll shows 47 percent of Americans now support tougher gun laws, compared to 57 percent after the December 2012 shooting massacre at a Connecticut elementary school in which 20 first-graders and six adults were killed.

President Obama, who said the day of the shootings was the worst so far of his two-term presidency, push back last week on criticism that Washington has missed its opportunity to pass reform legislation by allowing momentum to fade.

“Let me tell you, people here don’t forget,” said Obama, who will travel Wednesday to Denver to talk with community leaders and local law enforcement officials about new state gun laws. “I haven’t forgotten those kids. Shame on us if we’ve forgotten.”

Kelly also called the potential Grassley bill a “mistake” because it doesn’t include the background check and disagreed with the argument it will lead to a federal registry and possible gun confiscation.

However, he agreed with the argument that states a need to pass along to the federal government information about mentally ill people.

“They absolutely have a point,” Kelly told Fox.

There’s no doubt that Barack Hussein Obama is a populist politician. In many ways he is the every man . . . proving to the masses that indeed, anyone can become the president of the United States of America.

It is a fanciful dream of every American, that each little citizen child can grow up to become the most powerful leader in the world. It is part of our heritage, that no matter how humble the beginnings, or how disadvantaged due to some quirk of life, in this country it is possible to overcome the hurdles and rise to the very top; and in fact, it is true.

In the case of Barack Obama, he was born a minority baby in Hawaii (although he claimed to be born in Kenya when promoting the first of multiple autobiographies) to mixed-race parents (raised by his grandparents), and was saddled with a Muslim name. Although most of his records have been sealed and whisked away to vaults where the vetting process has been declared DOA, he appears to have done well in school at times, and have finished well at ivy league institutions.

Barack Obama appears to have been a fairly common intercity youth, and describes himself as abusing alcohol, marijuana and cocaine, and leaves room to believe there were additional drugs and related activities in the mix.

Obama was a player as a young adult, and describes his out-of-marriage affairs with women of multiple races, although the fact has been recently reported that the identities of these women were mere creations, composites generated for purposes of the books about himself.

Politically, Barack Obama is a Chicago minority street fighter, fitting well into the Democratic machine — “Vote early, vote often!” He describes himself as a “community organizer,” which in retrospect appears to have included an armband of some sort and included duties like registering the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders to vote. His politics are those of the ’60s campus radical, as are those of his mentors and appointees. He has exchanged treasury dollars for support and votes in the tradition of his party and as promised, has siphoned trillions of them off to promote his social welfare utopian ideals — most of those dollars ending up in the hands of his cronies. Although this “tax, spend, elect” cycle is short-lived per force, concluding when the treasury is emptied, the tactic often plays well to the electorate, in the short term. That run is about over judging from the 60 percent increase in the national debt in just the first 4 years of Obama’s presidency.

The President has often been seen making the television show circuit, demonstrating to his base that he is indeed the man they were told he was just 4 years ago — before he demonstrated a deaf ear to the citizens of the nation, and turned his tenure into a non-stop vacation cruise around the world.

The President’s White House is reported to be a boy’s club, hostile to working women and focused on sports television programming and drinking beer with other cool guys. The proletariat eats this stuff up.

So is Barack Hussein Obama the coolest president we’ve had in the White House? He’s not the player that Kennedy and Clinton were, and he hasn’t put away as much booze as some of the record holders . . . but all in all, it appears safe to say that he is indeed the most common man that has graced the hallowed sanctum of the people’s house.

Publius

California’s top-end taxpayers — already steamed over a recent hike in the nation’s highest state income tax — are now fuming over a new $120 million retroactive tax grab on small business owners.

In December, the state’s tax authority determined that a tax break claimed over the past few years by 2,500 entrepreneurs and stockholders of California-based small businesses is no longer valid and sent out notices of payment.

“How would you feel if you made a decision, which was made four years ago, (and) you absolutely knew was legally correct and four years later a governing body came in and said, ‘no, it’s not correct, now you owe us a bunch more money. And we’re going to charge you interest on money you didn’t even know you owed’,” Brian Overstreet told Fox News from his office north of San Francisco.

Last year, Overstreet and his fellow investors sold Sagient Research Systems and immediately reported the sale to the California Franchise Tax Board, the state’s version of the IRS. “It was good for the shareholders, it was good for the employees and good for those of us who founded it,” Overstreet said about the sale of the data mining company. “We paid the tax based on the law at the time.”

But the FTB changed its interpretation of the law after a state appeals court ruled unconstitutional a qualifying provision of the break requiring companies to maintain 80 percent of their workforce in California. Instead of asking the legislature for guidance on what to do, the FTB suspended the break in its entirety and ordered anyone who’s claimed it in the last five years to pay up.

“What that translates into is tens of thousands, if not literally hundreds of thousands, of potential jobs,” Overstreet contends.

Overstreet said he’s learned more about the workings of state government in the last two months than he ever knew before and he’s become the point person for others like him who were surprised by the FTB’s decision. “It’s going to cause not only significant financial hardship but real personal stress on a lot of people who shouldn’t be worried about this,” he said. “They did what is right. They paid their taxes. They should be off working away at their next business — instead they’re having to spend their time fighting this stuff.”

Overstreet wouldn’t disclose the exact amount the FTB says he owes but said it was “well into the six figures,” and calls it a sucker punch from the state.

The taxpayers fighting the FTB won an early victory in their fight when the tax board announced a temporary delay in issuing actual bills, technically called Notices of Proposed Assessments. It’s believed the additional time is to allow the state’s political leaders time to figure out a solution.

“Once the revenue is identified, those folks up in Sacramento will figure out how to spend it already,” warns former state Sen. George Runner. “And that’s what makes this so difficult. Even though it has this great bipartisan support as being wrong.”

Earlier this month, lawmakers from both parties introduced legislation that would force the FTB to scrap the retroactive tax bills. “Californians planned and based their actions on the language of the law as it existed,” Democratic Sen. Ted Lieu said in a statement. “Going backward in time and changing the rules innocent taxpayers relied upon violates the very essence of the rule of law.”

Republican Assemblyman Jeff Gorell’s companion bill would prohibit the state from charging interest and penalties in similar situations in the future.

“We want to unwind this poor decision and bring relief to small business owners throughout the state, while also setting prohibitions against this kind of surprise tax increase again for the future.”

What’s not as clear is what Gov. Jerry Brown thinks of the issue. “Quite frankly, we haven’t heard from the governor on this and the governor could solve this,” Runner, a Republican, said. “Ultimately, the legislature can try to fix it, but ultimately the bill still has to end up on the governor’s desk.”

Brook Taylor, a spokesman with the governor’s business development office, told Fox News in an email that the tax credit “provided a real boost to entrepreneurs” and that the court’s ruling was unfortunate.  Taylor added that, “we are reviewing the situation to determine how best to help these business owners given the court’s decision.”

California’s high tax rates, strong environmental regulations and a Democratic lock on many public offices have led some to conclude the state is anti-business. Texas Gov. Rick Perry, among other state executives, has made repeated overtures to the state’s business leaders to relocate. Those criticisms have been regularly rebuffed by Brown and his staff.

During a recent dust-up over a radio ad promoting Texas, Brown reportedly said, “you go where the gold is” and that Perry is “not going to Lubbock, or whatever those places are that make up that state.”

What’s not addressed by the pending legislation is what to do about the future of the tax credit. It’s been around for 20 years to promote job-growth and investment — especially in the computer technology and bio-research industries. “California has always prided itself in the ability to be that incubator for high-tech, for entrepreneurial investment,” Runner said. “And this just goes to the core of that. Undermines our credibility, if you will, on that particular issue.”

Overstreet’s main focus has been on retroactive part of the FTB’s action but he also said if lawmakers allow for the tax break to go away entirely it will have consequences for the state. “As a going-forward problem if entrepreneurs are no longer allowed this kind of incentive, there’s no longer any reason for us to intentionally grow our companies here in California. We are going to take our business to where it is the cheapest and most effective place to hire people.”

By Lee Ross / Published March 19, 2013 / FoxNews.com

President Obama and his associates on the left follow the Keynesian theory of economics, the idea that when economies wane, government deficit spending will reignite the flame. To that end the Obama administration has spent trillions of dollars in 4 years, around 40 percent of which has been borrowed, and on which the country is now paying interest.

The national debt stood at $10 trillion when Barack Obama moved into the Oval Office just four short years ago. That nearly incomprehensible amount represented the unbridled deficit spending of generations of left-leaning presidents and congresses—Democratic and Republican.

Today the national debt stands at $16.6 trillion, more than a 60 percent increase in so short a time. If the congress complies with the President’s demands for increased spending, the national debt will exceed $18 trillion by next year.

What’s the problem, you ask?

When Americans turn off the alarm clock and hustle off to work, the first $1.2 billion they generate every day must be siphoned off of the economy just to pay the current interest on the national debt. That amount grows each day as additional money is borrowed to run the government, and as unpaid interest on the debt compounds.

The federal budget is up to $3.8 trillion a year, with multiple stimulus packages filled with crony payoffs and pork barrel spending wasting additional trillions, without any economic return to the American people. The economy is worsening, with real unemployment and underemployment over 15 percent.

Government leaders should have put the country on a fast-track to pay off the national debt 20 years ago . . . and 10 years ago . . . and 3 years ago. Those on the left boisterously proclaim that the only answer is to raise taxes. We challenge the left to demonstrate to the public when raising taxes has ever improved the economy. In fact, it has never happened. It is when taxes are slashed that money is freed up and businesses invest in new jobs, putting people to work and heating up the economy. President Kennedy proved this, as did Ronald Reagan.

Time after time Keynesian economics has failed. So why do our universities still tout it as the model for our own economy? Why are our government leaders drawing all available dollars, current and future, into the abyss of federal spending? How many jobs were created with the shovel ready projects promised by President Obama as he highjacked nearly $900 billion in the first stimulus package?

Debt creates poverty. Ever family knows this. Those who frequent the check cashing-payday loans establishments have learned the hard way that it is a recipe for financial disaster. So when will our government leaders learn the lesson? We recall well as Jimmy Carter addressed the nation and scratched his head in confusion as he explained that he had implemented all of the university approved, liberal orthodox policies, yet the country appeared to be languishing in a “malaise.” These are people that don’t seem to learn from past mistakes. Debt equals poverty. Perhaps this is why Americans are becoming poorer with every passing day.

Publius

As the propaganda press stirs up the occupying proletariat in our nation, and our streets become filled with couch potatoes demanding their fair share of that which has been earned by others, the insanity and impossibility of the scene serves as ample proof that too much weed indeed dulls the human brain’s ability to reason.

The 99 percent demand that they be supported by the 1 percent. They demand that taxation be applied “fairly.”

Indeed, 47 percent of the country pays no federal income taxes whatsoever, and the top 25 percent of earners pay 87 percent of the total burden. The top 1 percent pay 36% of all federal income taxes, while the top 5 percent pay 58%.

In fact, this distribution scheme is unfair, but it is not those who now bear a significantly higher portion of the burden who should be made to shoulder even more of the load.

There is a story that I heard years ago about the fairness of the distribution of tax burdens that I think will be instructive. It’s precise origin is unknown as far as I know, but I would like to give proper credit if I could find the person who developed it.

Suppose that every day ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that’s what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. ‘Since you are all such good customers, he said, ‘I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men – the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair share?’ They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

‘I only got a dollar out of the $20,’declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,’ but he got $10!’

‘Yeah, that’s right,’ exclaimed the fifth man. ‘I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I!’

‘That’s true!!’ shouted the seventh man. ‘Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!’

‘Wait a minute,’ yelled the first four men in unison. ‘We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!’

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

Publius